MathWizard
formerly hh26
No bio...
User ID: 164
MathWizard
formerly hh26
27d ago
Did you forget my first comment that you responded to? Virtually all of mathematics is technically tautological. Any valid logical argument or proof is tautological. I suppose it depends on how you define "most", but if we weight by how often people use them, then most tautologies are not at all trivial, you just don't notice that the non-trivial ones are in fact tautologies.
MathWizard
formerly hh26
2mo ago
Oooh this is good trolling. The "you did this to yourself" aspect is very strong here, despite it being obvious that the poster is creating this combination on purpose, which is precisely the balance that a good troll creates.
MathWizard
formerly hh26
2mo ago
Pressuring victims of anything to retract their claims gets my hackles up. There are forms of "obstruction of justice" that don't outrage me, where people resist arrest, or destroy evidence when they get caught doing something illegal. Like, you shouldn't do that, but I get it. But witness tampering, threats, corruption? That's unacceptable, regardless of what it's in service of.
MathWizard
formerly hh26
19d ago
/
MathWizard
formerly hh26
1mo ago
if the woman lives in a castle doctrine state
Sounds like a big if. An lot of people don't live in castle doctrine states. And while on a societal level this could be fixed by adding this to more states, that's not super realistic for an individual person in this situation. An individual solution would be to move to a castle doctrine state, but that has some pretty high costs depending on how their social circles, family, and careers are structured.
MathWizard
formerly hh26
4mo ago
The Goal of the Futurist Right is not to create some new orthodoxy that can take the people who put us in our current predicament, and align them properly with the interests of our society.
As a Christian, I must reject this. For the Atheist Right this may your goal, but this is decidedly unchristian, and likely bad even from an atheist utilitarian perspective. Jesus came to save the sinners, taught to love our enemies, and spent his time teaching and hanging out with the lowest scum of society while the experts in the law mocked him and ultimately killed him. The easiest way to become evil is to be so sure that you are good and your enemies are evil that any acts against them are justified.
This is related to though perhaps a slightly different spin on Scott's Guided by the Beauty of Our Weapons. Perhaps a moral rather than rational/bayesian version. If you attempt to ruthlessly crush your opponents, and they attempt to do the same to you, then the stronger one will win with no correlation to who's actually correct. And to what end? You're no more likely to be on the correct side, and if you resort to evil methods in your pursuit of victory then you can rule over an evil society with you on top instead of them on top, I guess.
But if you do what's right, and you are more good and more kind then you will draw people to join you and simultaneously gain strength and build a better world. If you try to convince people that you are right, and they try to convince you that they are right, then if you are actually right you will be more persuasive on average.
Now, it's important not to be naive about this. We don't need to fill our streets with radical leftists and/or Islamists who seek to destroy us and build their own subcultures where they reinforce their beliefs and never convert. Survival as a society and culture is an important goal. But converting other people is also an important goal, not simply because they will be allies and help us but also because they are human beings who matter even when they do evil, and helping them to be better is the right thing to do. Marginalizing people might be positive as a instrument towards disincentivizing their behavior and limiting the damage they can do, but it is negative as an ultimate goal and the actual end goal should be conversion.
MathWizard
formerly hh26
14d ago
In terms of scale it involves more people, but in terms of perceived threat and actionable measures it seems less threatening.
Like, JFK was assassinated. This is immediately violent. Believing that the government/CIA assassinated the president makes them dangerous bad guys who are willing to assassinate people they don't like, and potentially justifies violence against them in retaliation and/or self defense. 9/11 likewise killed lots of people, making the perpetrators dangerous and worth retaliating against (even ordinary non-conspiracists can get behind this, which is why there was so much support for military intervention in the middle east after 9/11).
The most likely response to threats of violence are accumulating weapons to defend oneself and possibly pre-emptively strike using violence. If someone points a gun at you, you point one back.
Vaccines and Flat Earth are about scientific lies. They say that the leading scientists and media are corrupt and in the pocket of the government or whoever is leading the conspiracy, and the things they say cannot be trusted. Nobody needs to die to cover up the truth, because they can be paid off instead. Now, maybe some of the variants of vaccine and Flat Earth conspiracy theories do involve the government murdering people to cover up, and those ones are potentially dangerous, but I have never heard a Flat Earther talking about assassinations, so I think it's uncommon.
The most likely response to media and scientists lying is to not trust them, and possibly have this mistrust bleed into other domains. If they're lying to you about X, why should you trust them about Y? Now this can lead to some harms such as people refusing to vaccinate themselves or their children, but this is significantly less dangerous than actual violence. If someone lies to your face, you lose respect for them and possibly try to avoid them, but very few people would respond with violence (except in weird edge cases, where it's probably not about the lie itself but about the underlying thing they were lying about).
MathWizard
formerly hh26
14d ago
Hence the word "relatively". All conspiracy theories carry some risk, via this sort of chaining, but the Flat Earth ones are indirect like this, while others like "the FBI is stalking me" have a much more direct path towards danger.
MathWizard
formerly hh26
1mo ago
a fractured arm/ribs/cheek
Each of those seem like they would lead to vastly different outcomes, I would not just lump them together like this. If bat guy hits the chest or the arm not holding the knife then it plays out like you say and the knife goes in, game over. If bat guy hits the head, even just a cheek, then knife guy is not going to be in a good position to follow through on his lunge. If it's a strong hit and knife guy can't recover in time then bat guy can follow through with more hits, if not then maybe he scrambles away and they start again but with knife guy at a disadvantage. If bat guy hits the arm with the knife and knife guy drops it then it's over, but if he maintains his grip he might get his stab in.
So I think the outcome strongly depends on if bat guy's first hit can decide the match and prevent the knife from getting its first hit. Which for inexperienced fighters is probably going to be mostly luck.
MathWizard
formerly hh26
1mo ago
I think part of the problem is simply a failure to optimize for quality. An absence of merit and meritocracy. It's not required for wokeness to be an objectively negative property in games as long as it distracts from quality. If you had a substantial fraction of people obsessed with blue flowers to the point that they start hiring people to work on their game on the basis that they are fellow blue-flower enthusiasts rather than their programming and game design skill, that alone would decrease the quality of games (or productivity in pretty much any industry). If you insert a bunch of fanservice characters whose main appeal is that they wear blue flowers, and fail to make them appealing in other ways because the blue-flower-wearing takes care of that in the minds of the developers, then you end up with lackluster characters from the perspective of anyone who doesn't care about blue flowers. If all mainstream games all start to share similar plotlines of evil villains trying to poison all the blue flowers, or worse, dye them red (the horror!), people will get tired of it. Nobody cares about blue flowers, tell some good stories!
Any overly ideological creator that gets too self-absorbed in their own niche obsession will struggle to make good content that appeals to anyone who doesn't share their obsession because they get too many false-positives from self-masturbatory appeals to their own niche and stop optimizing for more objective quality once something meets their own distorted subjective view.
This is why any overly preachy content is cringe and lame even when it contains a message that I agree with. The fact that wokeness in many instances happens to be toxic and destructive is just the cherry on top. The ideological obsession is the majority of the problem.
MathWizard
formerly hh26
1mo ago
The wiseness of marrying her or not is going to depend on who she is now and in the future, the past is useful in-so-far as it informs those.
Having promiscuous sex is a sign that someone
-
Does not treat sex as special or sacred or important, at least not to the extent that a chaste person does.
-
Does not have a proactive loyalty or consideration towards their future partner. A chaste person who saves themselves shows respect and loyalty to the person who they will eventually end up with, before they've even met them. This means that once they do and that person fills that role they are irreplaceable.
-
Does not think about long-term consequences of their actions, or highly value things like reputation and honorable behavior. A lot of people are going to find this behavior icky, which both severely narrows down the promiscuous person's future partners, and leaves a permanent regret in the heart of partners who decide to forgive their past but still have to know about it.
All of this together means such people are more likely to cheat, and more likely to divorce when they get bored and find someone new. Their current partner may be special, but they are unlikely to be the same level of special that a purely monogamous person would have. However, this is correlational, not guaranteed. And people can change. I don't know Alice, I don't know how much she's changed since then, how loyal she is, how devoted she is to Bob, how much she does or does not regret her past. All I know is that however many years ago she thought that sleeping with however many guys was an acceptable thing to inflict on Bob before she ever met him. But ultimately, the decision is up to Bob. He has to figure out whether he's willing to be guy #537 to Alice, whether he can accept that without it bothering him for the rest of his life. And decide how much he trusts her, whether he's actually truly special to her or just another notch in her belt. And he's allowed to choose to marry her. And it might even be the right decision, I don't know her, I don't know how much her past speaks to her current character, whether she's still the same kind of person or whether she's truly changed.
But when making an argument, it should be focused on Bob, his future, and what's right for him. Her past only matters in-so-far as it affects those.
MathWizard
formerly hh26
3mo ago
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Gun rights are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, that makes them a Federal issue. Now, perhaps the exact wording and definition of what regulations constitute "infringement" or not are up for debate, but that is a debate about the meaning of the constitution itself. Once we've defined what is and is not infringement, no State has the right to make laws stricter than that. It's out of their jurisdiction. This is not a pure 100% Democracy, the electorate and anyone they elect do not have the legal authority to infringe the right to bear arms, even within the borders of their state, because the constitution does not give them that right.
Again, it's open for debate what does and does not count as infringement, but the legitimacy of getting involved in other state's business is present on this issue, and not other more progressive issues, because it's directly and clearly established in the Constitution.
MathWizard
formerly hh26
1mo ago
I'm not super familiar with the specific laws, but I'm pretty sure there's some sort of oversight. That is, if the Nevada State legislature suddenly coordinates and decide that all of them are permanently elected, only they are allowed to vote so they always win elections and can pick whoever they want to send to the senate/house/president, the federal government would object. I'm fairly certain they can't just overthrow their own Democracy. The Supreme Court would overrule them somehow, even if they had to stretch the text of some law or constitutional clause to make it happen.
MathWizard
formerly hh26
2mo ago
In a pure, mathematically perfect, game theory bilateral monopoly, any distribution is a Nash Equilibrium, making the actual distribution arbitrary and impossible to deduce logically. Any offer someone makes and commits to would be irrational to refuse, but any counter-offer is similarly irrational to refuse, although I suppose if you modify the game with some sort of negotiation system attached and maybe some semi-rational actors you could come up with some sort of converging equilibrium.
In the real world, nothing is a perfect bilateral monopoly isolated from other economics, in which case the asymmetry of the breaking of this monopoly is likely to have a very strong impact on the negotiation. Labor pretty much always has value, if nothing else than the fact that sitting around relaxing is typically more enjoyable than working (not literally always though), and there are plenty of other jobs someone could take. So if there's a resource A that is completely worthless without skill B, and person B has skill C that's useless without resource A, you still don't have a perfect bilateral monopoly because person B could go do something else even if it doesn't use that skill. This gives person B an advantage in negotiations. Or maybe person B can extract value from A with 99% efficiency and some random Joe off the street can extract value with 5% efficiency. That gives person A an advantage. Unless the bilateral monopoly is truly perfect, both the resource and the skill/labor are completely useless without each other, the imperfections in the monopoly are going to provide pressure on the negotiating price. Internal factors of the people such as their wealth and utility functions may also play a role, as you point out, but I think the asymmetries in the monopoly are going to be a bigger factor.
But different traits scale disproportionally with respect to each other, so I think you can meaningfully translate quantitative differences into qualitative differences in practice via orders of magnitude difference in ability.
That is, if someone with an IQ of 120 can throw a football 2% more accurately than someone with an IQ of 80, then we'd say that football-throwing skill does not scale meaningfully with IQ even if there is technically a minor improvement. If someone with an IQ of 120 can solve simple arithmetic problems 40% faster or more accurately than someone with an IQ of 80, then this would reasonably be considered a quantitative difference. If someone with an IQ of 120 can solve problems related to hierarchically nested hypothetical scenarios 50 times (5000%) faster or more accurately than someone with an IQ of 80, (which is realistic if the latter can barely handle them at all), then this would reasonably be described as a qualitative difference despite technically being quantitative in the details.
Clearly there isn't a well-defined bright line distinguishing the scenarios. But there are cases which fall unambiguously on one side or the other, such that it's meaningful to discuss.
edit: mixed up the words "quantitative" and "qualitative" in some places
MathWizard
formerly hh26
2mo ago
donating money to cure liver cancer is infinitely more aligned to EA values than, well, basically anything I can think of.
If one dollar saved the same number of liver cancer lives as one dollar saved malaria lives, this might be true. It's not. As a reminder, the E in EA stands for "effective". That means do the math, shut up and multiply. One liver cancer death might be worse than one malaria death, but it's not worse than ten malaria deaths, so if you can save ten lives for the same money as one life, you save the ten.
MathWizard
formerly hh26
30d ago
This assumes an infinite supply of potential sales. In practice I would expect to optimize over some denominator which combines time and sales, emphasized differently based on how saturated the market is.
Regardless, this doesn't address the main issue that the buyer's agent and seller's agent have near-identical incentives: have quick sales with high prices. The only distinction is that the buyer's agent's ability to market their services to future clients is correlated with low prices, but I'm not sure how strong of a correlation that is.
MathWizard
formerly hh26
30d ago
Ur, Amilia, and Marked are the easiest to avoid the taboos of passively if you want to just have a free power and not dedicate your life to advancing some cause.
I'd probably go with Amilia, become the head of a magical hospital where I heal people for money (and have enough EMTs and ambulances to keep people alive until I can get to them, and get obscenely rich while simultaneously helping people. I assume that charging money for healing is a lot less pleasing and would advance the agenda less than doing it for free, but it's not strictly taboo. I think as long as I don't turn away poor people, healing anyone who comes and simply charge them proportional to their ability to pay, it'll probably be fine. I assume that the existence of other Amilia users will drop demand to reasonable levels such it won't lead to absurdly high prices like it would if you were the only one who could cure otherwise incurable disease, but one in a million multiplied by the proportion of people who choose Amilia means this will still end up with a lot of money.
Alternatively, see if the Fae power can be munchkinned for absurd amounts of money by growing rare spices or something. Depending on the growth rate and quality/quantity it can be used on at a time, it might be more profitable to heal people entirely for free to boost your strength more and earn all your money from growing stuff. Though again, profits will be mitigated by other Amilia users.
MathWizard
formerly hh26
7mo ago
Like pretty much every point the left has, there's a genuine underlying issue that they identify: a kernel of truth, and then it has been exaggerated and distorted and taken way too far.
Representation matters a little. You should have a reasonable diversity of characters in different roles in different media. People should be able to identify with different characters that share characteristics with them other than just skin color. But not every single film has to have a rainbow cornucopia matching every single distinct subset. Every character in Mulan is Chinese (or a Hun), because it takes place in ancient China. Most characters in Peter Pan are English, because it's a story from England/Scotland. A lot of characters in Disney's Princess and The Frog are black, because it's set in New Orleans. A lot of American TV shows have a large diversity of characters interacting, because there's a lot of diversity in America. As long as all of these things exist, you will see both heroes and villains of each race. You will see bullies and victims and romantic love interests and weak cowards and loyal friends and scheming backstabbers, and lots of different people slotted into those roles. That doesn't require that every single piece of media have every single race in every single role. In some films the bad guys might be black and the good guys might be white. In some it might be the other way around. The point being: anyone can be anything, you are the arbiter of your own fate. As long as Hollywood does not converge all around the same consistent patterns such that one race is always slotted into a particular role, in which case children will pick up on those patterns and form those stereotypes. The left is right that this is bad. The left is wrong that doing it in the opposite direction to how it was in the distant past is good.
We already solved this problem. How many decades of under-representation, you ask? I turn the question, how many decades did we have it solved for? I don't know that every single issue was completely hammered out, but the 90s and early 2000s seemed reasonably fine to me. My generation grew up with healthy diversity and colorblindness on TV, and then we threw it away to punish our ancestors. The 50s were 70 years ago, who are you trying to teach "not to do this again"? Kids today are just going to learn that race and gender and identity categories are super important and you need to treat people differently according to their category and stereotypes, they're not unlearning stereotypes from the 50s because they didn't grow up in the 50s. They have no decades of learned racist baggage to unlearn because they haven't been alive for decades. They're learning the racism they're being fed on TV right now.
MathWizard
formerly hh26
2mo ago
It can get especially bad on Reddit when you're in a back-and-forth conversation with someone that goes enough layers deep that probably nobody else is reading your comments except the responder, and you can see when they're downvoting each reply you make.
MathWizard
formerly hh26
2mo ago
This is why I don't consider myself officially a Libertarian despite some fairly strong leanings in that direction. A handful of monopolistic megacorp/cartels using economic power to suppress competition isn't that much different from a handful of government bureaucrats doing that same with laws. Better to have some regulations even if they restrict the markets as first-order effects as long as they result in more free markets on the second and higher orders. And also to solve obvious game-theoretic issues like externalities and coordination problems.
But my ideal government would probably take a Libertarian minimalist government as a template and then patch the bugs until you end up 10-20% of the way towards what we currently have.
MathWizard
formerly hh26
1mo ago
What matters depends on what you're trying to extrapolate it for. If you're evaluating whether you or someone you know should purchase the product, then the value of the product matters, and intent only matters in-so-far as it correlates with the value of the product If person A is an intentional scammer then the vast majority of products they offer will have low value and high cost, so you can use that as a prior and probably dismiss all their offerings without any additional investigation.
If you're extrapolating it to the value of their other offerings then intent matters a little. An intentional scammer is going to offer bunches of scams and fail to cultivate real value. Someone who values themselves highly in a genuine way is going to attempt to offer good value even if they tend to overprice some of it, so the correlation between offerings will be weaker.
If you're extrapolating that to the value of their character, then intent matters a lot. If person A offers a bad product unintentionally, then you can't conclude they're a bad person, while if they do it intentionally then they are.
So if two people, A and B, have free videos offering advice, and then paid videos and services offering more detailed advice and individual attention for a cost, and person A is a known scammer and person B is not, you should probably avoid even the free videos from person A, because they're optimizing for advertising the scam and getting money rather than being genuinely useful, while person B is likely to offer more genuine advice in their free videos, because they believe the value of their product can speak for itself.
Ultimately, the value of the free and paid content is what actually matters, but the intent correlates strongly across content
MathWizard
formerly hh26
2mo ago
Outlaw Non-competes: Non-compete agreements distort labor markets and should be banned at the federal level.
I'm surprised to see this one in here alongside all the others. On the one hand, I agree that on the first-order a non-compete will distort labor markets, but on the other hand an absence of non-compete distorts incentives for training, trade secrets, and customer sharing. A company doesn't want to hire someone, spend time and resources teach them all the best techniques for doing a job effectively, and then have that person immediately leave and take all that training somewhere else or strike out on their own. Similarly, a company doesn't want to give someone a bunch of infrastructure and marketing and accumulate a bunch of clients and then spin off into a private business, carrying those clients with them.
Now, I don't think we have an obligation to do things just because they make companies happy, not at all. But the incentive structure means that if companies can't curtail these behaviors via non-competes they will curtail them in other ways. Companies will guard their secrets more carefully, will shuffle customers around so they can't get too attached to any one employee, and do other inefficient things that create economic friction.
MathWizard
formerly hh26
1mo ago
I'm not sure you can disentangle that, as the majority of these cases are not biological nepotism, as in people hiring their siblings and cousins, but ideological nepotism: people hiring their friends and colleagues who think the same way that they do because they have a shared ideology. The ideology and the nepotism feed into one another. Without the ideology they wouldn't feel such hatred for outsiders that they would feel the need to discriminate against them. It's not simply self-interest because they're not (usually) hiring actual family members.
This is a victory conditional on the belief that Republicans are more prone to putting their thumb on the scale than Democrats, rather than the other way around.
That is, if we have any two parties, A and B, and A is more prone to putting their thumb on the scale, then more leeway towards voting regulations is a victory for A, and less leeway is a victory for B.
It seems nontrivial to simply assume that the Republicans are party A, especially given their recent demands for more transparency and stricter adherence to election rules.
More options
Context Copy link